With the Olympics a distant memory, the Vuelta turning out to be the race of the year, and the World champs happening at the moment, I have decided, post Tour de France, to get back on my soap box.
The reason, of course, is Lance.
This is a story that has been building ever since Lance climbed back on his bike post-cancer in 1998.
I was as shocked as the rest of the universe to see the former world-champ return to the professional ranks.
In 1997, at a stage start in Pau, I bumped into a barely recognizable Lance. My old Motorola team-mate had just finished a course of chemo and had no hair.
Thinly disguised in a baseball hat, I hailed him down.
In an earlier life we had been room-mates. I, the senior member on the team, and Lance, the young prodigy.
Lance’s cancer was a shock and we chatted a little about how he was fairing. I asked Lance if he missed the sport, he said no, and in fact, he didn’t care if he ever rode again, saying he only wanted to beat the disease.
With that in mind I was curious as to his presence at Le Tour.
Illness, Lance said, had given him the time to reflect on his career and realize he had been a right prick to many people along the way.
He was back to make amends.
At that stage, I knew Lance was in litigation with the French Cofidis team who had cut his contract, but he sounded sincere.
He was on a journey to heal some broken relationships.
Twelve months later, Lance was back on the circuit and performing better than he had pre-cancer. By the Vuelta of that year, the Texan was featuring like a man possessed, placing 4th on GC.
If the Spanish result didn’t have the skeptics fired up, winning the 1999 TdF certainly did.
From the moment Lance looked like winning his first TdF, he has been under suspicion. He had not only survived cancer, he was now a better rider.
How was this possible?
Lance was a prodigious talent, so it was not unreasonable in my mind that he could indeed return to not only cycling but to this very elite level.
Pre-cancer, we were very close and I’m sure he wasn’t indulging in illicit products. But, remember, he had already won a world championship, his talent not in question.
It is difficult to imagine that as team-mates and room-mates I was not aware that he was cheating.
Post cancer, I had lost contact with Lance and I, like most, didn’t want to believe the rumors were true. But, like most, I am being forced to reconsider.
Lance has had a massive impact on the sport of cycling.
For me, it has not been just about the drugs. He has changed the sport, and perhaps not for the best.
Like this year’s Tour de France, it was a great race for Wiggins but not so exciting for the rest of us. During the Lance era it was much the same: Lance really only appeared for Le Tour, his racing was predictable, and it could be said the racing was boring despite his achievements.
During this era, the UCI protected its asset and Lance became godlike, infallible.
He pushed the boundaries to suit himself and the powers that be, it would appear, were complicit.
There is talk now of an amnesty, but really, why? The suggestion is that the authorities were involved.
We all want to know the truth one way or another, and as occurred during his cycling career, Lance is pushing the boundaries to suit himself yet again.
He may indeed wish to get on with his life, but if that is the case, why continue to present himself as a 7 times winner of Le Tour.
Perhaps the UCI should not consider an amnesty at all but take a long hard look at their own role, even in current events.
Surely Alberto Contador should have been pulled abruptly from the 2010 tour. Instead, the story was leaked months later.
Who is the UCI protecting: the riders or their own career structure?
The Lance case is setting a new precedent in that all riders with exceptional results are under suspicion. The cycling public believe that it is only a matter of time as to who is next and the real interest lies in the associations and the method.
If a rider can’t be nailed through conventional anti-doping methods, then the ex-parte evidence that has fueled the Lance fire and the protocols around the giving of this evidence will make life for a pro-rider murky and the witch hunts of darker days come to mind.
The Lance issue is sad for cycling regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.
It is sad because he was a great athlete and the ongoing saga has sapped the life blood from a great and passionate sport.
Lance will get on with his life, he has an astounding number of supporters, his cancer cause is great. But his impact on cycling is now more than ever questionable.
I have read all the stories, the allegations, and note that not unlike his pre-cancer days, Lance is the same guy and he rubbed many people the wrong way.
The story will possibly continue unabated because Lance hasn’t changed at all.
William Goat
Guest
Armstrong is under no obligation to prove his innocence, the USADA is under no obligation to prove his guilt ( beyond the auspices of it's own jurisdiction) but if we are truly after the truth would it not be reasonable to assume that if the USADA is able to prove a guilt which also may assist prove a guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a higher jurisdiction thasn its' own that it would do so ? Why should Armstrong pursue the matter to a higher court if he had in fact not lost the matter in the lower forum ? I have never stated Armstrongs' guilt or innocence, merely that the process by which he is held liable under the USADA is both flawed & illegal under both US & international law. LA may well be the world's largest charlatan, but if we are going to judge him to be so, then it should be by the worlds most exemplary judicial system & the USADA is not such a system. Say what you like, but if you were taken to 'trial' by a system which used the rules of evidence & deposition which the USADA uses, you would be screaming blue murder too. Arbitration is not a court of law, it is not a proper judicial process, it does not require the requisite proofs of evidence, deposition, witness statement & cross examination that a normal court does. The process invoked by the USADA is closer to a kangaroo court performed by a Neighbourhood Watch group than it ever will be to a proper court processed under proper rules of juris prudence. If it wasn't then it never would have called for sanctions & bans before it actually produced the evidence/findings of its' said process to either the defendants or the in fact the adjudicators or the aforementioned systems. Who are the adjudicators ? Oh it is themselves. the USADA, who are the prosecutors ? oh it it is also the Adjudicators, the USADA ! show me another proper judicial system in the world where the prosecutors are also the judges ?! Sure, Armstrong was able to go to arbitration, but if you had the chance to go to trial against a prosecutor who was possibly also your judge would you not be hesitant ? Indepedent adjudicator ? Armstrong stated that he felt that the independence of any possible adjudicator open to him via the USADA system would be so difficult to verify or guarantee that he couldn't possibly abide by their decision, hence his decision to reject arbitration, which is/was his right. Denial of due process as nonsense ? Easily said, less easily undone. You may find that the denial of justice to one man is justified, but when that denial is applied to many men then you will wish that your voice was so easily heard as it is now. There will come a day, not so far from now, when our society will decry the denail of justice on the very basis upon which individuals such as LA do so now. Right now you feel righteous because LA is an easy target, but exchange places, how would you feel if your guilt was assumed rather than proven beyond reasonable doubt in a proper court, rather than the court of ill informed yet popular opinion ? There will come a day, & when it does I will defend your rights as assiduously as I do those of LA.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Frankly, as far as I am concerned, it makes little men of his detractors. I look at every one of them and wonder ‘what have you done to make a difference, to matter?’ (Including you Phil). And the answer is nothing (that I can see). As far as I am concerned the only ones who should put a cork in it and move on are the detractors." Not only is that hypocritical (the same question can be posed to his defenders, and if you can defend him, others can criticize him) but it's also irrelevant. Whatever Armstrong has done regarding his charity work has absolutely nothing to do with his being charged with doping. Even if he actually cured cancer, it wouldn't matter. If he doped (and it seems certain that he did) then he's a cheat, and he deserves to be treated just like any other cheat. No cheat should be let off the hook because they happen to be involved in charity work. "History will remember Lance, will it remember any of you? I think you know the answer." It's unlikely to remember him fondly. Not that it matters. The only thing that matters is whether he cheated, any possibility that he didn't looks to have vanished.
Anthony
Guest
Yeah, what a great cyclist? I gave up racing in Europe because others were doping and I didn't want to, as that had nothing to do with sport. I did not for one minute enjoy his racing as I knew he was cheating, any insider knew that. So please stop glorifying this lying cheat.
Jimbo
Guest
He can't be proven guilty in a trial, as he was offered and refused arbitration. He was fully aware that by not engaging in arbitration it would be a tacit admission of guilt. I think once the Johan Bruyneel case goes to arbitration a lot of the evidence will come to light.
WooblesFan
Guest
What an interesting thread. The devotion of the lan-boys is strong. I suspect their blind faith is a defence mechanism. Lance is their broken hero and its too much to bear.
Jimbo
Guest
I must take issue at your concern at the USADA process. Although Armstrong may bleat that he wasn't afforded due process, even a cursory look at the situation reveals this is a self - serving lie, like so much of what Armstrong has said. He was offered arbitration, which he refused. If he took arbitration and lost, he could then appeal to the WADA if he wasn't satisfied with proceedings. If he doesn't like that, he could then appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. So, to insinuate he wasn't afforded due process is nonsense.
Jimbo
Guest
Colin, take a look at these articles as a start: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833/2 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years There is plenty of evidence there if you bother to look for it, and ignore the bleating of Armstrong and his supporters.
sittingbison
Guest
Excellent research Billy. The problem is you are coming at it from the wrong perspective. Doping is not a crime in USA or Spain, but is in France and Itally. The FDA and USADA processes ran parallel, they are however completely mutually exclusive. Disgraced Armstrong has been found guilty of all instances of the charge letter (including doping, dealing and conspiracy), been sanctioned by being banned for life from all Olympic sports, and been stripped of all results dating from 1998. As already stated, this is because he agreed to all the processes of the WADA code when signing his pro license with USAC. All those processes have been followed exactly to the letter (despite considerable expense and effort by disgraced Armstrong to muddy the water and deceive the public), processes that were in fact drafted by disgraced Armstrongs own manager Bill Stapleton. Said processes included an opportunity for disgraced Armstrong to face the charges, confront the evidence and mount a defense at the arbitration process (in legal parlance his "trial"), which he chose not to do knowing full well by doing so he was declaring himself guilty of all charges. USADA is not a trumped up organization, it is duly constituted by Congress to be the USA arm of WADA to safeguard the interests of Olympic sport in America. Which they are doing. On numerous other instances of cheating other than disgraced Armstrong (who is only one of six charged in this instance). As to other areas of disgraced Armstrongs fraudulent cheating career, Emma O'Reilly is only a corroborative voice to the 1999 positive (backed up by others subsequent). What is public domain is he failed the test and submitted a retrospective TUE signed by Dr del Moral after publicly declaring he did not have any TUEs. there is NO provision for retrospection. SCA was settled after disgraced Armstrong perjured himself in sworn deposition (major reason for not arbitrating, as he faces jail for perjury a la Marion Jones). The case was settled because even with doping his insurance claim was for a record number of wins period, which he achieved unless ASO rescinded disgraced Armstrongs TdF victories (which they did not do). Interestingly a major part of his case was presenting himself as being under USADA jurisdiction, which had never found him positive. Billy, you asked what are the FACTS of this case. They are many, NOT including the EVIDENCE. There has been a considerable effort by disgraced Armstrong his minions and cronies to obfuscate these FACTS. You are excellent at research and apparently a law student, I'll let you determine what is FACT ie what has actually occurred. You can start with what has been written on this very website in the various disgraced Armstrong threads.
MikeB
Guest
" Absolutely nothing has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law as to the guilt of Lance Armstrong in relation to illegal use of prescription medicines or the illegal possession of such medicines in any country or jurisdiction of any sort, be it judicial or regulatory" I appreciate your lawyerly perspective but WADA/USADA has its own process which athletes sign onto as a condition of their licence, when they agree to abide by the WADA code - this includes the sanction for non-analytical positives and USADA have every right to strip Armstrong based on the fact that their due process: http://www.usada.org/adjudication/ arbitration, also signed off by athletes and confirmed agreed as due process by Judge Sam Sparks when Armstrong tried to dodge that bullet, was rebuffed by Armstrong. Article 22.3 applies. Athletes know the penalties for refusing to go to arbitration to argue against test results (analytical or non-analytical); they also know the penalties for example refusing to state whereabouts or lying about whereabouts. The rules governing athletes are not the same as in common law. They are assumed guilty for whatever is found in their sample results and have to prove they DIDN'T take a banned substance / PED knowingly otherwise its sanction time. Go to the USADA website and read the rules - these are the rules which are being applied worldwide to athletes in all IOC sports including cycling. So its not some "premature" sanctions - he is an USA athlete operating under USADA rules and USADA regularly ban for the same offences. Armstrongs argument is that this suddenly doesn't apply to him, but I'm afraid you can't claim defence from abiding by the WADA code ("I've pass 500 tests") and simultaneously assert the code doesn't apply to you. The DOJ case is completely separate and relates to alleged fraud of USPS funds. This is a criminal matter and unrelated to trafficking or usage of PED. In the end the athletes abide by the code or get sanctioned by the code including arbitration as a mandatory stage in the due process. Enjoy the ride.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Except not everyone else was doping. Plus, that same argument can be used to get other dopers off the hook, such as Landis.
Colin
Guest
Your arguments and those of your other 'team mates' on this forum are flawed vitalyg -- OJ Simpson at least went to trial. LA has never been to trial. Therefore your argument fails. My point is that none of us have any right to convict him until he is tried in a court of law and the evidence weighed. What many people here call evidence is hearsay and so much puff until it is tested in a court of law. It has not been, therefore he remains innocent until proven guilty.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
William, nothing has been proved in a court of law because Armstrong has managed to avoid the process. As was stated above several times, the investigation by Novitzky and Miller was not dropped due to lack of evidence. Not at all. However, the argument you seem to make is that we cannot draw conclusions about Armstrong doping before he's convicted. Really? Should I believe O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife and her lover, too? (Apologies if that's a too American of a reference) There are volumes of evidence against Lance Armstrong, from separate, independent sources. All of whom seem to be saying the same thing - he doped. Once you're done reading clippings from newspaper and depositions, read Hamilton's book that was mentioned earlier.
vitalyg
Roar Guru
Wrong again. The grand jury and the prosecutor in charge of Armstrong's case were ready to indict, however, an order from above came putting a halt to the investigation. It is not clear why it happened (although there are few theories), but it had nothing to do with lack of evidence. In fact, I don't believe there is a single reputable news story out there where it was reported that the investigation was dropped because of lack of evidence. But of course that's how Armstrong's flak spun it.
William Goat
Guest
Sorry for the late reply, have only just read the post. My opinion ? Armstrong has done some great things for cancer sufferers ( a close friend included) & I'll continue to give him his due in that regard until the end of time. Personally I want to be remembered for everything I did, because it will show the true me, not perfect, not a saint, in fact to some people an absolute c**t, to others, they'd die for me & my memory. This is why I can't let the whole issue go. Livestrong does not do anything at all for actually researching a cure or prevention for cancer anymore. It hasn't donated anything worth mentioning beyond it's first financial year to cancer research. It's primary aim is to raise cancer awareness, beyond that it may as well be an organisation that puts out ads which tell you to stay out of the sun as far as cancer goes. Not knocking the whole thing but seriously, my Grandma does more for cancer avoidance than Livestrong does if cancer awareness is the parameter. I will defend the due process of the whole legal trial & doping issue goes, but if you want to tell me to support LA because Livestrong supports cancer research or even awareness then I'll tell you to buy a long sleeve shirt & a broad brimmed hat & stay out of the mid-day sun, give you my bank account details & let you put your money where your mouth is & make me a rich guy. You won't even have to buy an ozone polluting oil manufactured wrist band, just give me your money. I'll mail you the smiley face on your own receipt.
William Goat
Guest
Some facts of the case available other than the actual evidence that has not beeen made available to the general public YET but but most certainly exists ?! Seriously ?! I respect your point of view & the intelligent manner in which you present it, you clearly have a knowledge of the subject which goes deeper than the average layman's comment & thus I take what you post into consideration & do some research each time you do so, be it to agree or dis-agree. Therefore at this point I ask you to present your facts or available knowledge of the case which exist that have not been made available to the general public which surely must be something we all desire to see. Is this the evidence the USADA has thus far not released ? Please give us the benefit of your insight to alleviate all further suffering on this matter. Either you know a whole lot more than anyone else does or you don't. If you do, then please divulge both your evidence & source ( which I'm sure will please the US DoJ Office along with several other governmental agencies in several jurisdicttions across the globe) or if you don't, then simply state your views as being those of a well researched & knowledgeable fellow who is simply stating those personal views in a public forum. I do not proclaim to know either way if LA is guilty or not, I do raise my dire concerns as to the process that has thus far condemned him ( USADA) or cleared him of any concerns as to illegal use of PED's. Until then, unless we are positively enlightened, I will assume an innocent man presumed so until proven guilty by a fair & proper court of law in a fair & proper manner. The Roar is a fantastic forum for all of us to express our views, we enjoy it to the fullest of our abilities. It gives us liberties that we might otherwise be unable to undertake, expressly, libelous or defamatory remarks or comments which go unchallenged because of the broad nature of the comment or debate which resembles conversation around a water-cooler as the expression goes rather than actual recorded remarks in a public forum which are attributed to an actual person, hence our monikers.
sittingbison
Guest
Billy the problem is having patently false information posted repeatedly as if it were true. There are some facts of the case available other than the actual evidence that has not been made available to the general public YET but most certainly exists. To deny these facts is patently ludicrous. To pretend the evidence does not exist is rediculous. This actual article by Phil Anderson is saying he has gone from supporting disgraced Armstrong to being disappointed in realizing he was wrong about him, yet some people are trying to pretend even this is not so. Sure, people can believe whatever they like, if they want to remember disgraced Armstrong fondly fine. Just don't pretend he has not been found guilty of the worlds greatest ever sporting fraud and conspiracy.
sittingbison
Guest
Here you go Colin, this might help: http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.com/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
I am not being paid! Did you ever watch him race in his "drug fuelled" prime? Did you enjoy it at the time? I defend him being one of the most exciting athletes ever, he attracted millions to cycling and to his charity work. I dont defend his drug use, but whenever I saw him on the saddle he was awesome, and no drug test is going to erase the memories he gave me. If it is so easy to forget the joy he brought then I feel sorry for you.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
thanks even if he did not direct money to research and just to awareness, this has the same effect. Everytime he was presented to the public with a government official there was innevitably a donation made to research. he did a bad thing, get over it and look at his positives. Thiink of how you want to be remembered, is it for the bad things and mistakes you did, or for the good you did? I hope for your sake that you did something worth being remembered for
William Goat
Guest
So don't argue ! No-one is forcing you to contribute your view, but since you seem convinced that anyone backing LA is either being paid or wasting their/your time then please show us your irrefutable evidence that he is guilty as charged. Otherwise, you are just the same as all of us, a time waster or a paid lackey.